Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

Israel's Netanyahu Suggests Compromise in Nuclear Talks; Poll: Americans See Improvement; Obama Talks Making Voting Mandatory; Hillary Clinton Taking a Break from Paid Speeches; North Korean Leader to Visit Moscow. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired March 19, 2015 - 13:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:30:56] WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome back to our viewers in the United States and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer, reporting from Washington.

We've been talking about the future of the U.S./Israeli relationship that has been pretty low in recent months. One very sore point in particular is the ongoing talks between Iran and six world powers led by the United States aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The White House was not pleased to put it mildly when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a couple weeks ago went before the U.S. Congress to lobby against any deal. Today, the prime minister repeated that, in a perfect world, Iran would have zero, zero centrifuges to enrich uranium but a smaller number he could actually live with.

A Likud Party member, the Israeli intelligence team chief, Yuval Steinitz, has been very much involved in all of this effort. He's once again joining us from Jerusalem.

It looks like what the international powers are willing to accept are, let's say, 6,000 centrifuges over the next 10 years for Iran. Israel, several Arab countries in the gulf, for example, would like zero. The prime minister is now suggesting that maybe there is some sort of compromise and maybe a smaller number, less than 6,000, you guys, Israel, could live with. What would be that number?

YUVAL STEINITZ, ISRAELI INTELLIGENCE MINISTER: Look, Wolf, first, I must reemphasize, with 6,000 centrifuge or slightly more even than 6,000, we believe that it is already below on year breakout (ph) time. This is the first point. But more important, still, is what is going to happen after 10 years and even more important than that is the issue of R&D. If Iran will be permitted to continue to develop and to complete R&D on much more modern and efficient centrifuge, that means that even in the next few years you don't have a total support of the program because they can make progress that, in few years' time will even shorten to breakout capacity. So, I don't think that everything is concluded yet. There are many important issues like the issue of the R&D. Generally speaking, we cannot accept an agreement that to park one year or less than one year from fissile material for nuclear weapons, this is a problem. BLITZER: So, what is the number of centrifuges you could potentially,

over these next 10 years, live with that Iran would be able to continue to have?

STEINITZ: Look, I don't want to be too specific. But, you know, in the beginning, it was zero and then only few hundred symbolic enrichment capacity. We didn't like it. But since this was proposed by the P5-Plus-1, symbolic enrichment capacity, we felt that we can live with it because it doesn't give the Iranian a threshold nuclear state. And this puts approximately two maybe even more years from nuclear weapons.

But, as I said, it's not just about the number of centrifuge. 6,000 is, of course, too high. But also what's going to happen is even more important if the Iranian can still make progress and this time it will be legal. They can force because they can buy knowledge or experts or materials if it's part of the agreement. It's not illegal any more. And what happened to the rest of the centrifuge and the infrastructure? All of this is extremely important.

And I want to add another issue. Iran is currently not just trying to develop nuclear weapons or at least to preserve itself or to establish itself as a threshold nuclear state, but also trying to dominate the Middle East, to actually to control Iraq, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, to create this Iranian and Syria and also in the south and Yemen and in the Gaza Strip. This should be also handled by the international community.

[13:35:13] BLITZER: One final question, and I just want to get as precise an answer, Minister, as possible. If they reach a deal and we don't know if they will reach a deal, a framework agreement by the end of this month. It is still, as U.S. officials say, 50/50. Let's say they reach a deal, a deal that you hate, what is Israel going to do?

STEINITZ: Look, first, just to make it crystal clear, we are not against the deal. But we are against the deal that Iran too close to threshold nuclear statehood. We will speak up and we will consider what to do. After all, it is our right and duty to take care of our nation's security and to do everything in order to protect our self against any threat. We will have to see how we should handle this and how we should handle the Iranian invasions, the Iranian involvement all over the Middle East and all around Israel with terrorist forces and Shiite militias. This is also another deal that should be handled and taken very seriously by the international community.

Look, we feel the heat from Iran. Moderate Arab regimes feel the heat from Iran. Iran is all over the Middle East. And we have to tackle two issues, the nuclear issue and also the aggression of Iran all over the Middle East.

BLITZER: All right. Minister Yuval Steinitz, minister of intelligence of Israel. I assume you're going to stay on in that portfolio and the new government, but we shall see. The prime minister is busy trying to put together that new cabinet right now.

Thanks very much for joining us. STEINITZ: Thank you, Wolf. It's a pleasure to speak with you. And

I'm confident that we can even discuss our differences and keep the very important and good friendship and alliance between the United States and its best ally in the Middle East, Israel.

BLITZER: All right. Both sides are going to have to work really hard to repair some of the damage because it has been significant, and I know there is going to be a lot of effort going on in the coming days.

Minister Steinitz, thank you very much for joining us.

STEINITZ: We need to succeed.

BLITZER: Thank you.

STEINITZ: Thank you.

BLITZER: Here in the United States, after last year's election, some pundits suggested President Obama was, in effect, already a lame-duck. But don't tell that to anyone over at the White House. They see a chance to score some major wins, take advantage of Republic infighting. We'll discuss what's going on when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:41:07] BLITZER: All right. Some are suggesting the president of the United States may already be a lame-duck, but he certainly doesn't act like a lame-duck. In fact, he seems more energized than ever, using the power and privilege of his office to pursue his agenda. Case in point, this frustration over the anemic 37 percent voter turnout in last November's midterm election, which was even lower among minorities, resulting in Republicans taking control of not only the House of Representatives, but the Senate, as well.

Listen to what the president said about this yesterday in Cleveland.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: In Australia and some other countries, there's mandatory voting. It would be transformative if everybody voted. That would counteract money more than anything. If everybody voted, then it would completely change the political map in this country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: We'll discuss that. We'll also discuss these new poll numbers. A lot of Americans are seeing some improvement. A recent CNN/ORC poll showed half of those surveyed think the president has been successful as president. 47 percent now rate him as a failure. That puts him squarely in the middle between his two predecessors, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton at this point, 77 percent, thought he was successful. Bush, 39 percent. The president, 50 percent right now.

Let's bring in our senior political reporter, Stephen Collinson. He's written a detailed analysis of the president as a lame-duck. You can find it on CNN.com and CNN politics. Also with us, our chief political analyst, Gloria Borger.

He's not acting like a lame-duck right now. He has a lot of stuff going on and seems energized all the time.

STEPHEN COLLINSON, CNN POLITICS SENIOR REPORTER: Normally, by this time in a presidency, the seventh year, half way through the second term, you would think the president would be running out of steam, running out of gas politically. But this White House which has not always been politically astute in Washington, the president has been, you know, pushing forward his foreign policy. Making Republicans respond to him on Cuba and Iran. And he's also had some luck. We've seen some good economic numbers. Unemployment is down to 5.5 percent. There was some encouraging for the White House numbers on Obamacare enrollment. You know --

BLITZER: 16 million people.

COLLINSON: Right, just last week. So there's a sense of almost serenity at the White House, which is, for most of the last seven years been absolutely crushed by crisis and a strange feeling down there right now.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: I think what it is, is a change in the president himself. I mean, I'm told that he felt very constrained by the tactical responsibilities he had to Democrats heading into the midterm election. A lot of them didn't want him in their states, that he felt if he went too out front on policy issues like immigration, for example, which he has done since the election, that he could have hurt them, or Keystone Pipeline, another example. So he held back. Once this election, this midterm election was over, it's like he was Clark Kent, who decided to go into that phone booth and come out wearing a cape. I'm not going to call him Superman but come out with a different persona. And for the base of the Democratic Party, that's really good news.

BLITZER: What do you think of his notion now that maybe voting in the United States, like in Australia, maybe it's a good idea to make it mandatory?

COLLINSON: I'm not sure. It could be very difficult to get that passed, I think. The decision not to vote is a democratic choice. It shows anger or antipathy with the political process. As far as the president is concerned, I think one thing we cannot underestimate is the importance of the economy here. You know, 300,000 jobs are being created a month. A lot of caveats, a lot of middle class people are still left behind. It is inconceivable that we're talking about the president in an encouraging political position around 50 percent favorability ratings if the economy keeps improving.

(CROSSTALK)

[13:45:02] BORGER: Look at Bill Clinton, and people looking back at Bill Clinton and the boom of the '90s, that's why he has a 70 percent approval rating because of the economy. By the way -- (CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: In the late '90s the economy was booming.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: That paid off, even though he had other issues.

BORGER: On the voting, I think before you would have to make it mandatory for people to vote in this country, you can make it convenient for people to vote in this country, easier for people to vote in this country. That's where I would go first.

BLITZER: Assuming Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, Gloria, will she run on the president's economic record and try to take credit for that?

BORGER: I think the more jobs that are created, the lower the unemployment is. I think the big issue is wages. And I think she'll run on what's good about his record. The question is whether this wage gap tightens a little bit. I mean, we saw wage growth. I think it was at 2 percent in February. It should really be double that, Wolf. I think what you're seeing is a basis for the next campaign, which will be Hillary Clinton and Republicans talking about income and equality as one of the big issues that we have to face going forward. And nobody has come out with a great solution yet. So, we're going to have to see that plan.

BLITZER: 5 percent unemployment is better than 10 percent.

COLLINSON: Right.

BORGER: Don't forget, a lot of people have stopped looking for jobs, Republicans would argue that. There's the long-term unemployed. This is a discussion that we'll continue.

BLITZER: We'll be looking forward and we'll discuss it on another occasion. Poll numbers, is the country moving in the right direction or the wrong direction, because that usually is a good indicator of where people are going to start voting.

Guys, thanks very much.

Good article, CNN Politics. Go to CNN.com and people can read your article.

COLLINSON: Thanks very much.

BORGER: Just click.

BLITZER: Easy.

(LAUGHTER)

Hillary Clinton could be taking a major pay cut in the coming days. She might be taking a break from those paid speeches she's been giving. What hint will we get of her future plans by suggestions that today is her last paid speech? Get ready. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: We're just getting this in from the White House. The press secretary saying that White House officials are in touch with their Israeli counterparts and trying to schedule a phone call as early as today between President Obama and the prime minister of Israel, Prime minister Netanyahu. That could come as early as today. We're on top of that story as well.

Hillary Clinton may be getting ready to announce a run for the presidency. That hasn't kept Clinton off the paid speaking circuit until now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: You know, we're much less racist, sex sexist, homophobic. We don't want to spend time with anybody politically. That is too stressful.

(LAUGHTER)

Mix it up a bit. You can have the red cabin --

(LAUGHTER)

-- the blue cabin. Have to come together and actually listen to each other. Wouldn't that be a novel idea?

(LAUGHTER)

And --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[13:50:23] BLITZER: Former secretary of state speaking to a group of camp counselors for a fee, raising questions about her timing and strategy.

Let's discuss with our senior Washington correspondent, Jeff Zeleny.

I guess she's stopping giving campaign speeches to set the stage for an announcement as early next month.

JEFF ZELENY, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: That's right. She's getting everything in place to announce sometime during April. People are moving up to Brooklyn where her headquarters is going to be based.

But we have seen an interesting thing in some paid speeches. She's given a window into what her message might, bit by bit. This is a control environment. She's not taking tough questions from you. She's taking sort of softer questions from these groups. It's been instructive when you stitch them all together.

BLITZER: The fact that she's giving up the income from the speeches, that means she's running for president. No more doubt about that.

ZELENY: No more doubt about that at all. But why did she keep doing these for so long? They don't necessarily need the money. She's made so much off her books and other things. But some of her folks who are joining the campaign have been volunteering. So she's been paying some of them out herself. So these speeches have been fueling that. But some controversy over how much money she's accepting. They won't say how much money she's accepting from this group. Her normal fee is $200,000 per speech, which would seem pretty high from this type of group.

BLITZER: That's a nice fee to give a speech.

Let's talk about the e-mail controversy. Is she over it or is that still potentially a major source of controversy?

ZELENY: Still a source of controversy. The Congress is looking into this and subpoenas are going to come and we still have not seen them. She says she wants them release but the State Department has still not released them. But she's trying to turn the subject and run now against the House Republicans and Senate Republicans. She's firing back in a unique way.

BLITZER: She wants to talk about economic issues, job issues, women's issues. She's got a whole agenda that she's getting ready to unveil.

ZELENY: We haven't heard it for so long. It's one of the reasons this e-mail controversy has dogged her. She's trying to change the subject and she's just beginning the outlines of what her message will be.

BLITZER: And she's got a staff putting together right now, paid staff.

ZELENY: She is. So many people are reporting to her headquarters. That's why we believe sometime early to mid April is the target date.

BLITZER: Do we know the venue?

ZELENY: I would be surprised if it's a speech or rally. She's send an electronic message out. In '07, I remember, on a Saturday morning, she sent out a YouTube video. Some type of interactive media is probably how she'll do it. But I'm told it will be part of a longer strategy that goes the course of several days.

BLITZER: She tweets. So maybe she'll tweet.

ZELENY: She does.

BLITZER: All right, Jeff, thanks very much. We'll stay on top of that.

North Korea's leader hasn't left this country since taking power and now he's planning a trip abroad, one that tells us who North Korea trusts more than any other country in the world.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:57:02] BLITZER: It's official. The North Korean leader, Kim Jong-Un, is expected to attend World War II victory celebrations in Moscow. That, according to a Russian official who asked not to be identify. It will be the first trip outside of the country since he took over in 2011. Russia and North Korea have declared 2015 a friendship year for the two countries.

Our correspondent, Paula Hancocks, has more on the ties that is bind.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PAULA HANCOCKS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): What do you give the man who has everything? Russia's leader, Vladimir Putin, chose race horses for Korean's former leader, Kim Jong-Il, a relationship that Kim Jong-Un appears keen to nurture. The days of warm embraces between the leaders of China and North Korea have gone. Kim Jong-Un hasn't met him yet. A nuclear program followed by international sanctions soured relations and the execution of a man China knew and trusted did not help. So Kim is turning to Russia. The former Soviet Union subsidized North Korea heavily before 1991, so why not its successor?

ANDREI LANKOV, KOCKMIN UNIVERSITY: Soviet Union was beginning to spend or if you like, waste money on the foreign policy, to buy influence, to buy support. For Russia, the foreign policy is in an area where money is not spent but earned.

HANCOCKS: Trade between the two countries was worth $100 million in 2013, a drop in the ocean compared to China's $6.5 billion. Last year, Putin cancelled $10 billion of North Korea's $11 billion Soviet- era debt, a prelude to both countries declaring this year a year of friendship.

Much of North Korea's weaponry is from the Soviet Union, dating back to the Korean War. Some observers may worry that Pyongyang is looking for updated arsenal, even nuclear know-how. But South Korea is not concerned at least not publically.

YUN BYUNG-SE, SOUTH KOREAN FOREIGN MINISTER: That does not mean that Russia is compromising on their position on North Korean issues.

HANCOCKS: After its actions in Crimea and Ukraine, Moscow is not popular in the West. Pyongyang never has been. The two leaders finding common ground in mutual isolation and anti-American fervor.

(on camera): After being in power more than three years, Kim Jong-Un hasn't met a single world leader. Experts say it would make sense for him to make Putin his first, cementing a blossoming friendship while, at the same time, moving at least publically further away from his main sponsor, China.

Paula Hancocks, CNN, Seoul.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: We'll see what happens, if he does actually make that visit to Moscow.

That's it for me. Thanks very much for watching. I'll be back 5:00 p.m. eastern in the situation room.

For our international viewers, "CNN News Center" coming up next.

And for our viewers in North America, "Newsroom" with Brooke Baldwin starts right now.

[14:00:09] BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN ANCHOR: Here we go. Top of the hour. I'm Brooke Baldwin. Thank you so much for being with me here on CNN.